THC Science

Law B‑class High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unclarity regarding meaning of "natural-born"; need for further research

The interpretation of Art. II "natural-born citizen" clause seems to need further research. It appears that the statute cited in the existing Wikipedia article does not purport to define "natural-born citizen" for purposes of Article II presidential qualifications.

There is at least one law review article that tries to shed light on this (and seems to argue for a fairly liberal interpretation): Jill A. Pryor, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L. J. 881 (1988). Pryor's article (footnote 2) in turn cites the following: Freedman, Presidential Timber: Foreign Born Children of American Parents, 35 CORNELL L.Q. 357 (1950); Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 MD. L. REV. 1 (1968); Means, Is Presidency Barred to Americans Born Abroad?, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REP., Dec. 23, 1955, at 26; Morse, Natural-Born Citizen of the United States--Eligibility for the Office of President, 66 ALB. L.J. 99 (1904); McElwee, unpublished article reprinted in 113 CONG. REC. 15,875 (1967).

An interesting United States Supreme Court case that discusses and analyzes various related issues is the following:

United States v. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (holding that a person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. but to noncitizens is thereby automatically a "natural-born" citizen, but citing reasons indicating that a person born abroad, even to parents of U.S. citizens, does not constitue a "natural-born" citizen).

Below is some of the discussion from United States vs. Won Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), beginning at page 655: " . . . . In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: 'The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: 'There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.' 'There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or or [169 U.S. 649, 656] explanations of it, was clearly. though quaintly, stated in the leading case known as 'Calvin's Case,' or the 'Case of the Postnati,' decided in 1608, after a hearing in the exchequer chamber before the lord chancellor and all the judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere, Postnati, 62-64; s. c. 2 How. St. Tr. 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

The English authorities ever since are to the like effect. Co. Litt. 8a, 128b; Lord Hale, in Harg. Law Tracts, 210, and in 1 Hale, P. C. 61, 62; 1 Bl. Comm. 366, 369, 370, 374; 4 Bl. Comm. 74, 92; Lord Kenyon, in Doe v. Jones, 4 Term R. 300, 308; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

In Udny v. Udny (1869) L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 441, the point decided was one of inheritance, depending upon the question whether the domicile of the father was in England or in Scotland, he being in either alternative a British subject. Lord Chancellor Hatherley said: 'The question of naturalization and of allegiance is distinct from that of domicile.' Page 452. Lord Westbury, in the passage rei ed on by the counsel for the United States, began by saying: 'The law of England, and of almost all civilized countries, ascribes to each individual at his birth two distinct legal states or conditions,-one by virtue of which he becomes the subject of some particular country, binding him by the tie of natural allegiance, and which may be called his political status; another by virtue of which he has ascribed to him the character of a citizen of some particular country, and as such is possessed of certain municipal rights, and subject to certain obligations, which latter character is the civil status or condition of the individual, and may be quite different from his political status.' And then, while maintaining that the civil status is universally governed by the single principle of domicile (domicilium), the criterion established by international law for the purpose of determining civil status, and the basis on which 'the personal rights of the party-that is to say, the law which determines his majority or minority, his marriage, succession, testacy, or intestacy- [169 U.S. 649, 657] must depend,' he yet distinctly recognized that a man's political status, his country (patria), and his 'nationality,-that is, natural allegiance,'- 'may depend on different laws in different countries.' Pages 457, 460. He evidently used the word 'citizen,' not as equivalent to 'subject,' but rather to 'inhabitant'; and had no thought of impeaching the established rule that all persons born under British dominion are natural-born subjects.

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said: 'By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.' Cockb. Nat. 7.

Mr. Dicey, in his careful and thoughtful Digest of the Law of England with Reference to the Conflict of Laws, published in 1896, states the following propositions, his principal rules being printed below in italics : "British subject' means any person who owes permanent allegiance to the crown. 'Permanent' allegiance is used to distinguish the allegiance of a British subject from the allegiance of an alien, who, because he is within the British dominions, owes 'temporary' allegiance to the crown. 'Natural- born British subject' means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.' 'Subject to the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, any person who (whatever the nationality of his parents) is born within the British dominions is a natural-born British subject. This rule contains the leading principle of English law on the subject of British nationality.' The exceptions afterwards mentioned by Mr. Dicey are only these two: '(1) Any person who (his father being an alien enemy) is born in a part of the British dominions, which at the time of such [169 U.S. 649, 658] person's birth is in hostile occupation, is an alien.' '(2) Any person whose father (being an alien) is at the time of such person's birth an ambassador or other diplomatic agent accredited to the crown by the sovereign of a foreign state is (though born within the British dominions) an alien.' And he adds: 'The exceptional and unimportant instances in which birth within the British dominions does not of itself confer British nationality are due to the fact that, though at common law nationality or allegiance in substance depended on the place of a person's birth, it in theory at least depended, not upon the locality of a man's birth, but upon his being born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the king of Enl and; and it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the dominions without being born within the allegiance, or, in other words, under the protection and control of the crown.' Dicey, Confl. Laws, pp. 173-177, 741.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

NOTE: The opinion is rather long and can be read in full, at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

Cross-references; Also for further research: 14th Amendment

More cross-references from this article might be in order, in addition to the existing two:

citizenship
nationality

And any cross-referenced link-out articles (including the two noted above) should be checked for consistency.

Let's invite a constitutional scholar to weigh in on the relevance (if any) to this discussion, of Amendment XIV, section 1, concerning citizenship.

Irrevocability of natural citizenship

I have moved the article section quoted below here

{{quotation|

McCain's fake birth certificate

Two points...

1. It's quite obviously fake. ^[1] Two different fonts on a supposedly typewritten document and one of those fonts variable spaced. Nuff said.

2. Even if it weren't so obviously fake Hollander would still not count as a reliable source WP:RS. No more so than Lucas Smith counts as a reliable source. Mystylplx (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to 1 - First of all you are engaging in Original Research [WP:OR] by stating your opinion as fact about the validity of the ref'ed BC which is not acceptable to maintain a neutral POV [WP:NPOV] and does not justify your deletion and replacement of the longstanding referenced info about McCain's birth place; Second the site that you reference (obamaconspiracy.org) is currently a dead link; Third your edits indicating that McCain was born in Coco Solo have no NPOV sources and on top of that, other references that are/were in this article show that McCain was born several YEARS BEFORE the Coco Solo Hospital was built, making it impossible for McCain to have been born there; Fifth, my RV had notes that included your supposition that the BC is not valid and you deleted them too, showing that you are not neutral to the article. You should not be editing here if you are not neutral, your edits clearly show that you have an agenda here other than fact and showing a complete and well rounded article; Sixth, if a controversy exists, you include BOTH points of view for Balance. Your version lacks balance, impartiality tone, and neutrality and you have not even attempted to gain any consensus for the significant changes you have made to the article. The original version attempted to include both points of view and balance them. Therefore I am again RV it to the original version. You should not RV again without first obtaining a consensus to make a change and allow people discuss your proposed changes and investigate the sources. Seventh, Dobbs' "fact checker" blog is an opinion blog, not a serous news journalism site, and certainly not NPOV. So it cannot be used as a reliable source. Add to that his description of the alleged other BC is hearsay, and not documented fact.

Actually all the reliable sources say he was born at Coco Solo Naval; air station, including the one's I linked to. And it's not a dead link now. Mystylplx (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to 2 - The BC that was ref'ed was made a part of the court record and reported in the news. It exists, so it must be dealt with. If anyone has a different version, they can present it and we can ref and discuss and add it to the article. Until then the information taken from the documented BC should remain intact in this article. --Britcom 07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can include information about it's existence if you want. But stop saying it's where he was born. There are several Kenyan BC's for Obama that exist, where made part of the court record and were reported in the news. That doesn't justify claiming Obama was born in Kenya. Mystylplx (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already did include information about both, and you rv'ed it a second time in favor of your one sided argument. You are not editing in a neutral way, you are acting like a mccain operative, and no I haven't forgotten about the last time you did this. There is zero documentation to show that mccain was born anywhere BUT Colon. You are basing your entire supposition on what mccain himself has said and what other people say mccain has told them (or his mother). mccain is not a neutral source (nor his mother) and he is certainly not a reliable source with his track record. the mccains have a vested interest in making people believe he was born on the base, because he seems to think it makes him eligible for national office (it doesn't). In fact mccain cannot even know first hand where he was born because no one remembers where they were birthed, that's why we need witnesses in the form of birth certificates signed by impartial witnesses. So no, you don't get to rewrite history here with your bogus hearsay info. Take it elsewhere, I am not fooled. And you can drop the obama misdirection arguments as a smokescreen for your edits, obama's case has nothing in common with mccain's. If you wanna discuss obama's BC, go edit that article. I suggest you revert the article, until you can get consensus here, you don't have that now. If you choose not to revert your edits, we can get someone in here to arbitrate if that's where you want to go with this. --Britcom 07:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I've been much more often called an "Obot" than a McCain operative. Look--this is very simple. Hollander is not a reliable source any more than Lucas Smith and Orly Taitz are reliable sources about Obama being born in Kenya. See WP:RS. Hollander is the only source claiming McCain was born in Colon Hospital. And the birth certificate he showed is obviously fake.^[2] All the reliable sources say he was born in the small family hospital on Coco Solo Naval Air Station. McCain may not be a "neutral source" but he is a reliable source. It's called WP:RS not WP:NS. Plus there was a birth announcement in the Panama American^[3] saying he was born at the "submarine base hospital."Mystylplx (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to obfuscate the facts Mystylplx. Hollander is not the source of the information, the Public Registry of Panama is. [mccain's birth certificate documents] include not only his birth certificate, but also a certification document that is dated, stamped, and signed by the registry office clerk, and a notarized affidavit of the legal representative of the Panama Railroad Company (the company in charge of maintaining and operating the Panama Canal, and now the custodian of its records) that says that the Panama Canal Health Department records show that mccain was "born in the City of Colon, Republic of Panama". These documents were entered into the court records in the Hollander case were they became available to the public. The Hollander case itself is irrelevant, the documents stand on their own merits and are self-proving, therefore without some proof of your allegation that they are fake, (your linked blogger armchair opinions are not proof) the documents must be presumed official, valid and reliable.

How is a document, conjured up with somebody's paint program "self proving?" The Hollander certificate came from a Panamanian con man named Lamb who claims to own the Panama Canal Railroad or some such nuttery. There is nothing on the document certifying that it comes officially from the Republic of Panama. There is no affidavit from the Republic of Panama saying that it is authentic. There is no signature of a Panamanian official on it. While I understand the Wikipedia's restriction against original research, at some point common sense has to come into play with a document that is so OBVIOUSLY a paste up job. The fake Hollander certificate was submitted at the very end of the trial, before Hollander's lawsuit was dismissed and no one ever authenticated it. It is nothing more than a piece of paper with no support. Against that, we have a contemporary newspaper announcement that McCain was born on the Coco Solo base (link in Dobbs' article).

Re: WP:NS, you are correct the above policy ref is wrong, the policy I had intended to refer to is now called WP:SUBSTANTIATE I encourage you to read that.

Re: the "birth announcement in the Panama American...saying he was born at the 'submarine base hospital'." This does not validate your point, it validates mine. The announcement says mccain was born in a 'hospital'; not at home, not in an ambulance, etc. and in 1936 the only hospital available to the 'submarine base' on the Atlantic side of the canal was Colon Hospital which was adjacent to (but not in) the Canal Zone. The base did not have its own hospital until after 1941 when the Coco Solo Navy Hospital was ordered built by FDR after the Pearl Harbor attack, until Coco Solo was built, the Colon Hospital WAS the 'submarine base hospital'. mccain was born in 1936, so he could NOT have been born at the Coco Solo Navy Hospital. --Britcom 08:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The source is Hollander and the documents are fake. Is that so hard to understand? They didn't have variable spaced fonts in the 1930's. They didn't use two different typewriters to type those things even if they had had variable spaced fonts on typewriters back then. Get it? Fake documents provided by a non-reliable source.

And they had a hospital there all along. They always have a hospital on Navy bases that size. He was born in the small family hospital on the submarine base that pre-dated the larger base hospital ordered built by FDR. Do you have some reliable source that says the hospital ordered by FDR was the first and only hospital that base had ever had?

This is an encyclopedia article, not a conspiracy nut blog. Even though we are talking about conspiracy theories that doesn't mean we have to buy into them. WP:SUBSTANTIATE is exactly what you are trying to violate. All the reliable sources say he was born on the Navy base. Only the conspiracy nut sources say otherwise. You are trying to push a conspiracy theory in spite of the evidence, which violates NPOV. It's obvious you have an ax to grind here, but this is not an appropriate forum for promoting conspiracy theories. Mystylplx (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it? That's all you got? An Ad hominem attack of your debate opponent and an unsubstantiated personal declaration that your tissue paper construct of blogger opinions amounts to "All" the reliable sources. Where are your rational arguments for including your sources? Where are your documents supporting your claims? Why would any reasonable and rational person accept your argument for making such a radical change to this article? What basis have you for your reasoning? Is it your position that we should cast aside certified documentation from government sources in favor of a politicians 96 year old mother's recollections from 74 years ago, and some blogger's claim to have been "shown" a secret document by the mccain campaign behind closed doors? (Yeah, nothing could possibly be impeachable there.) Are we to ignore the fact that the very same politician in question (and his mother) have a vested interest in the suppression of his birth documents because said birthplace, where it to have come out in the campaign, would conflict with his prior statements and raise doubts about his eligibility to seek higher office? And we are to do all this for no other reason than Mystylplx wants... nay demands, that we allow this to comfort his/her ego and conform to his/her political motivations? Do you believe Wikipedia to be your personal plaything Mystylplx? --Britcom 21:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, you are the one who started the ad hominem attacks and now you are whining that I pointed out you have an ax to grind? Grow up.

All the reliable sources say he was born on the navy base. All of them. The NY Times. The Washington post. Every major newspaper that's done a story on it. McCains own biography. All of them. Look in the citations in the article itself. And please stop claiming the fake birth certificate came from "government sources." It's an obvious fake. It's a forgery. Get it? Please take your ax grinding elsewhere.

I mean, look, if you want to close your eyes and believe that a typewriter in the 1930's was able to produce a variable spaced word processor font (and only in the parts of the certificate that are specific to McCain) then you go right on ahead. If you want to believe Fred Hollander is a "government source" then you go right ahead. Go write a blog post or something. But this is wikipedia and such nonsense must not be tolerated here. See wp:verifiability wp:npov and wp:libel to name just a few.Mystylplx (talk) 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not going to offer anything better than your own opinion and a childish demand to have your edits included anyway, then you forfeit the debate and your edits will now be reverted. --Britcom 05:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore it all you want. I have shown overwhelming reliable sources. You have one unreliable source. Please take your conspiracy theory BS elsewhere.Mystylplx (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try building consensus among the editors first before you make such a radical change and you may find that you get reverted less. --Britcom 05:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try finding reliable sources before putting in your conspiracy BS and you will get reverted lessMystylplx (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this for a reliable source? John McCain: "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon..." Source: United States Senate website for Senator John McCain. [[1]] --Britcom 06:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. You truncated the quote. The entire quote is "I was born August 29, 1936 in Colon, Panama Canal Zone CoCo Solo Submarine Base." You're not even being honest and this is starting to border on vandalism. From WP:BLP

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not complying with this may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article.

The birth certificate that Hollander submitted isn't self-authenticating under the Federal Rules of Evidence, as it a foreign document. That Hollander filed it in a court (and that court documents are open to public inspection) does not mean the court accepted that birth certificate as genuine, as the court's dismissal was based on lack of standing. The court did not have to (and likely did not) examine the birth certificate; it did not have to, and did not, rule on its authenticity or admissibility. --Weazie (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your poorly sourced conspiracy stuff must be removed. Each time. It goes on to say the three revert rule doesn't even apply in a case like this. Please stop. And will someone else please weigh in on this????Mystylplx (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that McCain said on his Senate web page that he was born in Colon. There is only one Colon in Panama and only one Hospital in Colon in 1936 (Colon Hospital) and neither was part of the US Administered Canal Zone According to the Canal Zone Treaty (shown in the ref'ed map). Checkmate. --Britcom 05:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He said he was born on the submarine base, which IIRC is now withing Colon city limits. The city limits have expanded considerably. Besides, it doesn't matter. All the reliable sources agree on where he was born. Just because he used the word 'Colon'as he also said the submarine base is irrelevant. Mystylplx (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't mangle this fact into something that it is not, that would be dishonest. The man said he was born in COLON in 1936 (that means the Colon of 1936, not today and there is no submarine base in the area there today, that was there in 1936 too, so the context is clear; and he said he was born in a hospital. The only hospital in Colon in 1936 was Colon Hospital on the north end of the island. The Coco Solo hospital wasn't built until after 1941. See here: [2] . Look, you have already admitted that he said he was born in Colon, just go with that. --Britcom 11:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not admit he was born in Colon. I'll simply point to what -Stephan Schulz said on the BLP page,

McCain's usage is normal - note that if you are anal enough, neither Miami Beach nor the University of Miami are in Miami, my Alma Mater, the Technische Universität München, is not in Munich, and London is not a city.

You are welcome (as far as I'm concerned) to put that quote in an appropriate place within the text so long as you include the entire quote. But you can't use it as a basis to baldly declare he was born in Colon Hospital or anywhere else but the base hospital. Colon is simply the biggest city near where he was born. Mystylplx (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in, or someone else put it in. I am not going to because I don't edit anymore. --Britcom 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the point of any agenda regarding McCain's place of birth moot, considering his jus sanguinis entitlement to birthright citizenship? 174.55.80.89 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Natural Born Citizenship. Article Two of the US Constitution sets up two classes of citizenship, those citizens who may become President or Vice-president, and those citizens who may not. John McCain's case has historic significance to the subject of this article. His case touches on several aspects of Article Two citizenship, including; what is the definition of, and geographic extent of "the United States" and its jurisdiction; does Natural Born Citizen mean birth within the United States, birth to two United States Citizens, either, both, or neither; and when does/did a US place attain the ability to produce Article Two Natural Born Citizens. But before we can draw a conclusion about how Article Two relates to McCain, we must establish and document the facts that exist surrounding McCain's birth so that the reader may fully understand the nature of McCain's relationship to Article Two eligibility and the factors that impact his claim to Article Two eligibility for US President. --Britcom 07:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's doubly a moot point since McCain didn't win and won't be running again.Mystylplx (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion - take this discussion over to the John McCain talk page and go through it there. This page should not have different information than the main JM page (or the early life sub page). It probably gets more exposure than this page, so would be a good point for a central discussion. Ravensfire (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain they've been through this before. Probably dozens of times, perhaps not with Britcom, but with other McCain birthers. But if Britcom wants to take it there that would be fine with me.Mystylplx (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your above characterization of me as a "McCain birther" is offensive and and meant to insult. You should remove those references. --Britcom 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, that where it needs to go. All three articles mentioning McCain's place of birth need to have the same information. Actually, four - there's a mention in the 2008 McCain presidential campaign article as well. There are discussions about this in the talk pages of those articles and, like here, the consensus has come down to the Naval Air Station as the place of birth. I haven't seen anything new raised by Britcom, so I think this is settled. Repeating things over and over without new information isn't helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 18:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Coco Solo article mentions that McCain was born there. Mystylplx (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a look at this map, Notice how Colon is on an island in the middle of the bay and Coco Solo is separated from Colon by Manzanillo bay:

On the following linked map (| Larger Map of Colon, Panama) we can see that Colon has a hospital at the north end of the island. This hospital existed in 1936; the Coco Solo Hospital was built after 1941 by executive order of FDR after Pearl Harbor. [3] --Britcom 05:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was a small 'family hospital' on the base prior to the larger hospital ordered by FDR.^[4] McCain is NOT mentioned in the Panama health dept birth register^[5] which he would have been had he been born in the civilian hospital.

There is no independent evidence that a "family hospital" ever existed in Coco Solo. Your link merely states that a document presented by the McCain campaign was read by a reporter but not released, and that reporter claims the document says "family hospital". That is unsubstantiated political propaganda, not verifiable fact. No one else seems to have been born at this "family hospital", every other documented birth in the area at that time took place in the Colon Hospital. It seems clear that "family hospital" was in all likelihood a "family" ward within the Colon, Hospital for US military wives to give birth in. What reason is there to believe otherwise? --Britcom 15:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And all this is rather moot anyway, since all the reliable sources agree he was born on the base and none say otherwise. Maybe you should take this to the John McCain page and argue it there.

Oh, and Michael Dobbs is a serious journalist who happens to be writing on his papers blog page. wp:rs has this to say of such circumstances

Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control.

And like I said--it doesn't even matter. The NY Times, the Washington post, all major newspapers, McCain's own autobiography, and the U.S. Senate itself... Dobbs is just one more reliable source in a long list.Mystylplx (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above draw upon the same source, an unreleased unauthenticated document produced by McCain's own people. The only other document source (the Panama records office) you reject. --Britcom 15:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

A few observations

I am not a constitutional lawyer but only recently during this administration taken interest. My comments - FWIW:

This is an especially charged issue now mainly because of the polarization over Obama's presidency and the notable secrecy shrouding most of his background esp. in re to birth and education.
It does seem that the article is not written in a 100% balanced way.
Since the 14th amend is so intimately involved I would agree it should be covered within this wiki article. Esp. the 14th amendment incorporation could be seen as superceding as well as encompassing Article II however it is not explicit and uses different language... especially in re to the matter of being subject to / "having sole allegience" to the United States of America.
The Supreme Court just punted on the latest plea that rested on de Vattel - granting the filing of a brief as amicus curiae while rejecting the Writ of Certiorari for review apparently saying it is a "political issue."
However, it should be mentionexd that there are State laws or proposed laws that would require full disclosure of relevant information in order to be included on state ballots for federal office.
Reference to de Vattel translation seem irrelevent, i.e.: "A 1797 English-language edition of the 1758 treatise The Law of Nations by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel states the requirements to be "natural-born citizens" as "those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."[6] However this translation was not available at the time the Constitution was written. Of more interest would be who wrote the words in the original and accepted Article II, perhaps we will never know the answer to that. However, it is highly likely that several of the leaders of the band ie., Hamilton, Madison, Jay et. al. were fluent in many languages capable of translating. And certainly, Jefferson himself who was in France during most of this time was fluent and possibly the source of de Vattel(?).Danleywolfe (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to point 6: I agree. Linking to constitution.org to cite a public domain work they have posted there is okay, but I don't think citing any of Jon Roland's original works or statements counts as a reliable source for other purposes, such as used on this page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have some faith that in its prognostications the US Supreme Court does more than "just punt..." HiLo48 (talk) 20:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the obvious birther talking points: 1) the Kerchner cases (which was dismissed to due lack of standing, by the way) is discussed in the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article; 2) the "birther bills" are also discussed there; and 3) the de Vattel translation is relevant because when the U.S. Constitution was written, no one had translated into English the phrase "natural-born citizen," and to suggest who could read what would violate WP:OR. (And Jay was not at the Constitutional Convention.) --Weazie (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a related discussion on this matter here: Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#.22Natural_born.22_vs_.22naturalized.22. Also immediately above that discussion. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the Territorial jurisdiction article. Without researching the relevant US law, I doubt that a child born of a mother who sneaked into a US Embassy or onto a US military base located outside the US would be considered a NBC of the US. My understanding is that a child born of a mother who sneaked across the national border into a US state (or, probably, into a US territory such as Puerto Rico or Guam) would most likely be considered a NBC. My understanding is also that the matter has not been adjucated, and that any firm pronouncements on the subject are expressions of individual. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you're right. Being born within the actual boundaries is more certain than being born in an embassy or military base. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was essentially a territory. But he also had birthright citizenship from his parents. I think some of these points have been made many times on this and related talk pages. Will Beback talk 00:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CZ was never US territory, it was leased sovereign Panamanian territory by treaty, similar to Gitmo. At the time of McCain's birth he was not entitled to US Citizenship by virtue of the place of his birth, i.e. he was not born IN the US. He WAS entitled to US National status (a lesser status) by virtue of his two US parents living in Panama and his father working for the US. The Panama & CZ citizenship statute for children born of US parents was not created until AFTER McCain was born. Sure, McCain is now a (non-natural) US citizen because he qualified under the later statute, but at birth such was NOT the case. It has NOT been shown that having two US parents alone passes the post for Natural Born Citizenship status. It HAS been shown that birth in a US State AS WELL AS two US citizen parents does pass the post for NBC status. McCain cannot claim the latter and therefore a cloud remains over his citizenship status that he cannot remove even if he released his BC. McCain would have had to have been born in one of the 50 states or DC to have unimpeachable NBC status. --Britcom 14:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While happily accepting that many of the founders were fluent in French the translation of "indigines" to "natural born citizen" is not a natural one (no pun intended). Bringing Jefferson into the discussion is absurd - he was in France at the time and in those pre-internet days could hardly have been a source of the term.NyallM (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any real dispute about the source of the term--it was common English as it was used back then. Look at all the examples of "natural born subject" from British writing. It was well understood what they meant. Mystylplx (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is essentially what SCOTUS said in Wong Kim Ark. --Weazie (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be better to know what the ratification conventions said about the phrase, if anything. I imagine at least one convention would have covered it as a few went through the proposed Constitution line by line. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. It was simply too clear and commonly understood to any merit any comment14:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

One more observation, Emerich Vattel's "Law of Nations" appears to be the ONLY written work ACTUALLY referenced in the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8 Powers of Congress : the 10th Sentence or paragraph. It would seem that the Founders and writers of the Constitution's reverence for Vattel's work, would direct toward Vattel's definition of "natural born citizen" in Article 2 Section 1.

In the spirit of civility, I will say simply: WP:OR. And please sign your comments. --Weazie (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Danleywolfe," above, seems to forget that Benajmin Franklin, another of our Constitution's authors, spent much time in France as well, and was our unofficial ambassador during the U.S. Revolution. Also, as I write this, our U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has scheduled an oral argument hearing on the merits of the case regarding Obama's qualification as sourced from several lower court rulings combined, including Keyes v. Obama, for May 2, 2011. Lastly, "Britcom' gets McCain's status wrong: His father was a military officer, so the "occupying force" exception applies to McCain's facts of birth, thus making him a U.S. citizen ineligible for dual citizenship (with Panama), and thus having NBC status. 71.106.213.194 (talk) 08:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unlike Obama....

I removed the material about McCain not showing his birth certificate, unlike Obama, since the section is about McCain, and Obama has not even been mentioned in the article yet. Not sure how "longstanding" that has been and also don't know if an IP removing that is vandalism, even though an edit summary is always helpful. What do others think about this? TIA --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds appropriate. Will Beback talk 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. My first reaction to the removal of longstanding content by an IP without any edit summary was to treat it like vandalism. Standard procedure. My edit summary shows I thought the IP was promoting the POV that Obama had never released his birth certificate, which isn't true. It was released, examined in detail, and a description with images has been published. The next removal I thought was a misunderstanding of the situation. I am satisfied with your explanation. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the precise phrase "unlike Obama". I'm also uneasy with the text saying "never released his birth certificate to the press or independent fact checking organizations" — since, again, that issue hadn't been mentioned either up till this point in the section. Perhaps something like "McCain showed his birth certificate to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs" — or if more detail is needed, something like "Although McCain has declined to publicly release his birth certificate, he did show it to Washington Post reporter Michael Dobbs" (note that the source uses the "declined to publicly release" language). If Obama simply must be mentioned, I think a stylistically better way would be to say "In contrast to his opponent Barack Obama (see below)" or something along those lines. Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C)After further review :), it looks like the "never released his birth..." materal was added about 8 weeks ago, not that it really matters, but longstanding was mentioned in a revert,anyways. I'm also not sure about including that material, especially so "high up" in the entry. Richwales makes some good suggestions. --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)ps, thank you Brangifer for that explaination...--Threeafterthree (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vattel, Obama and previous presidents

CNN said that under Vattel, not only is Obama not a natural born citizen, but that six other presidents are invalid presidents. Shouldn't these six be added to the section on Obama? 64.229.101.183 (talk) 04:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a useful source for what was said on CNN, it could be of value. HiLo48 (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This it? Google to the rescue. :) -- Foofighter20x (talk) 05:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Six other Presidents? Who besides Arthur? Remember that for those alive before 1788, there was an alternative "grandfather clause" which did not require NBC status. 71.106.213.194 (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the info at the link above, though it does quote Bob Arthur (A Republican Montana state rep) as saying, "A natural born citizen, according to the law of nations and the law of nations and the study of natural law in accordance with a book written by Vattel, which we believe to be the standard for natural born citizenship, requires that you have two parents of -- of citizenship born in the United States to be the son or the daughter of a -- two parents born of citizenship in the United States." I don't know who the we is that he spoke of there. I haven't found a list of the six of six presidents elsewhere on CNN, but I see that Huffpost, that shining light of journalistic impartiality, bannered the info here that someone had commented in a politics forum there three months before the bannering, "By that standard, six other Presidents would have been illegible to serve (Jackson, Jefferson, Buchanan, Arthur, Wilson and Hoover). Yet not even that deters the birthers, because, after all, they were all white." See that December 29, 2010 Huffpost forum comment here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wtmitchell - Please leave the politics and racism out of it and stick to the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.191.148.3 (talk) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article move (renaming)

This article has sever political POV and requires a renaming to save all information and editor input, work and references. As it stands right now, the article has been written as a direct challenge in itself to facts. This violates the spirit of Wikipedia if not actual policy and guidelines.

Citizenship requirements for President of the Untied States is the actual subject being overweighted and requires it's own page to separate the two subjects. Not all natural born citizens run for elected office or the presidency. The direction of this article requires neutrality to the subject as much as any other.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is wholly incorrect. The passage states you must be a citizen of the US, in order to gain eligibility. If you are not born in the US, you must be a citizen and resident, for 14 years.

If the intent was for only those born in the US, the passage would have said AND, not OR!!

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.26.46 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put it back. The name change is inappropriate for this article. The entire article is about "natural born citizen." There's not even any mention of the other requirements such as 35 years age and 14 years residency. If you think the article is a challenge to "facts" then state your WP:RS and fix it. Changing the name to one that is completely inappropriate to the article is no solution. Mystylplx (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect assertion about natural birth requirement.

This article is wholly incorrect. The passage states you must be a citizen of the US, in order to gain eligibility. If you are not born in the US, you must be a citizen and resident, for 14 years.

If the intent was for only those born in the US, the passage would have said AND, not OR!!

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.26.46 (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

I think that it's fairly clear. You must be a natural born citizen, OR a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. You must also be at leat 35, and have lived in the U.S. for 14 years. The 14 year residencey requirement is separate from the citizenship requirement. In other words, you cannot be a U.S. citizen who lived in a foriegn country until right before the election. You must live in the U.S. for at least 14 years prior to your election. --144.191.148.3 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the way it's always been interpreted, and the OP is engaging in a bit of "original research". The founding fathers sometimes put commas in weird places. Try reading the second amendment, for example. As a side note, by implication you have to have to be at least 35 and have lived in the US at least since turning 21. Only they stated it in a semi-convoluted way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vattel as 'possible source?'

It's hard to see how Vattel could be a 'possible source' considering the fact he never used the phrase "Natural born citizen." He wrote in French and what he wrote was "Les Naturales ou indigenes" which literally translated would mean "the naturals or natives." That phrase was later translated as "natural born citizens" in an English translation that didn't come out until ten years after the Constitution was written. But if anyone can find an wp:rs saying Vattel was a possible source then we can include it. But wp:rs doesn't include birther sites or the dissent (the side that lost, thus their opinions were rejected) in court cases. Mystylplx (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that WP:RS is needed to support the concept that de Vattel was a possible source used by the Framers; the previous language relied on WP:OR. Having said that, de Vattel was cited (in dissent, usually) in some court cases; his citation in those cases might be relevant in discussing those specific cases. --Weazie (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could support a slightly wider use of judicial dissents. Since there appears to be a legitimate difference of mainstream opinion regarding exactly what a "natural born citizen" is, I would be comfortable with acknowledging judicial dissents, remarks in the Congressional Record, writings of the Founding Fathers, etc. which illustrate the range of opinion. Such material should, of course, preferably be cited indirectly via reliable secondary sources, and it must not be given undue weight or used as part of a claim that some particular interpretation is obviously correct but has been suppressed as part of an overarching conspiracy. Richwales (talk · contribs) 17:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that judicial dissents could be valuable if we find them mentioned in secondary sources. Really, we should try to find secondary sources even for the majority opinions, as court decisions are primary sources and interpreting what they mean can be tricky and might constitute original research. But if/when we do mention them it should be noted the opinion came from the dissent and thus has no legal or precedential weight. Mystylplx (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP 68.170.209.229 has again added back the Vattel reference, despite the request that this be disucussed here. (And, obviously, there was no attempt to discuss.) --Weazie (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP has 68.170.209.222 added back this language. --Weazie (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to see how Vattel could not be considered a possible source considering his book is perhaps the earliest use of the phrase “ natural born citizen”, though he did write it in French terms of 1758. He wrote "Les Naturales ou indigènes", but that does not literally translate to the “naturals or natives”. He used “Naturales” as a noun identifying his subject. Then he used “Indigène” as an adjective to describe the “Naturales”. In French Indigène as an adjective is translated as native-born. So a more accurate direct translation would be “the naturals or native-born”. However, translated into proper English this was rendered “natural born”. This interpretation was confirmed in the 1797 translation of The Law of Nations as being understood to mean natural born citizen.

There is further evidence that the French “naturels” was understood to mean “natural born” at the time of the drafting of the constitution. In diplomatic correspondence from the Minister of France to the Continental Congress in 1781 it reads, “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront être pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. “ This was translated by Charles Thomson who later would be the secretary of the Continental Congress to read, “The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. “ This can be found in the Library of Congress Journals of the Continental Congress in article 3. This correspondence predates the letter that John Jay wrote to George Washington in 1787 in which he also used the phrase “natural born Citizen “, and cautioned against foreigners being given access to the position of commander and chief of the American army.

Perhaps the greatest evidence that the founders accepted Vattel's definition and did not just require a president to be born a citizen is that they rejected the wording in Alexander Hamilton's plan which called for the president to merely “be born a Citizen”. They instead adopted the to them familiar and stricter wording of “natural born Citizen” for presidential eligibility. -T.J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.156.28 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source that posits the above connection. No matter how obvious the "evidence" is to you that this has got to be a "possible source", your proposed connection is original research unless you can cite secondary sources that have made the same claim. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that his book didn't use the phrase "natural born citizen." That didn't come out until an English translation ten years after the Constitution was ratified. Indeed, the first Congress (made up of may of the framers) rejected David Ramsays arguments that citizen parents were required to be a natural born citizens. In fact, if you actually read Vattel it's clear the framers disagreed with him on many things--Vattel thought the most important job of the state was to establish a state mandated religion, the framers prohibited that. Vattel disagreed with ideas like freedom of speech and freedom of press, which the framers adopted. Vattel thought only aristocrats should be allowed to own weapons--the framers gave us the second amendment right to bear arms. But if in spite of all that you can find reliable secondary sources that claim him as a possible source then they should be included. Mystylplx (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor Dumas sent 3 French copies to Benjamin Franklin who used de Vattel's Law of Nations, and deposited one copy in the Library Company of Philadelphia. de Vattel is known to have influenced the drafters of the original constitution. Vattel, The Law Of Nations, Preface to the 1999 digital edition, by John Roland. See p xxx Considering the uncertainties, it is better to err on the side of giving readers more information with suitable disclaimers as needed, rather than no information. DLH (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that violates WP:RS and WP:OR. --Weazie (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weazie just wiped out a major section that had been previously accepted that I had rearranged a bit.DLH (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above, inclusion of this material violates many wikipedia policies (original research, reliable source, primary, synthesis). --Weazie (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is summarizing historic evidence with documented references. Vattel is commonly cited in legal cases on the issue. Weazie appears to be imposing his POV against all evidence.DLH (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:RS that says that, please cite it. --Weazie (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's little evidence that Vattel had much influence on the framers. They did read him, but then they were educated men. He's nowhere mentioned in the Convention Debate notes nor the Federalist papers though, and that certainly doesn't give great credence to the level of his purported influence. Additionally, Vattel used the phrase "naturals ou indigines." Which literally translated means "The naturals or natives." Notice that even in the french the words "natural and native" are synonyms. He explicitly defines them to be synonyms. I don't disagree that "natural born citizen" may well be also a synonym for both other terms.

But it really doesn't matter as the English terms 'naturals' 'natives' and 'natural born citizens' were all already well known and there's literally zero reason to think that the framers, who were writing in English, needed to go to a Swiss Philosopher writing in French to inform the meanings of their English usage. Mystylplx (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before discussing what subjects can be introduced as germane to the topic, shouldn't we clearly establish what the topic is? This is extremely difficult with the article being constantly renamed, apparently according to the whim of the latest editor to happen along at the moment. The most recent move is a case in point. The article was (briefly) named "Natural Born Citizen Clause". That title clearly limits the topic to a specific clause of the U.S. Constitution, and arguments to exclude Vattel as not being shown by reliable sources to be related to the topic are appropriate. However, if the topic is a broader concept of "natural born citizen", as the current title implies, then Wikipedia must approach the topic from an international viewpoint, and Vattel's work seems to be a perfectly admissible source as a discussion of the concept. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should stick to a title. Someone a ways back changed it to simply "citizenship requirements for President of the United States, which is clearly inappropriate, so I changed it to 'Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution.' It looks like it's been changed several times since then for inexplicable reasons. The title should definitely mention we are talking about the U.S. Constitution and needs to specifically say 'Natural born citizen clause.' However, whatever the article is currently (and temporarily) what the entire article is about is the 'Natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution I will change it back in hopes this silliness stops. Mystylplx (talk) 17:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I participated in that somewhat by dropping the single quotation marks you had included in the title; then on 4 April, User:Savidan shortened it (and added a cap) to "Natural Born Citizen Clause", stating – correctly, it seems to me – that this formulation is more consistent with other similar articles (see {{US Constitution}}). I agree the article has been principally about the U.S. constitutional aspects from the beginning; the article native-born citizen seems to be a fork to the more generic concept. My preference would be User:Savidan's more concise, proper-noun version, since WP naming conventions discourage unnecessary length or disambiguation; but no matter what, it would probably help what little article stability there is if a consensus title could be arrived at and move-protected (in checking spelling, I also noticed that Savidan is an admin, so could probably help with clean-up of unnecessary redirects and protection at the same time). Comments? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of 'Natural-born citizen' scrubbed - Why?

Why has most of the information historically in this entry been deleted? POV war? See: 'Natural-born citizen' info vanishes off Wikipedia DLH (talk) 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because World Net Daily either has no idea how a wiki works, or is deliberately obfuscating to sell more copies of Corsi's book. The information that they say is missing is indeed still in the article, at least it was 5 minutes ago when I checked. Junggai (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

US Constitution - Law of Nations referenced

The actual U.S. Constitution itself at archives.gov references the "Law of Nations," capitalized as written.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America authorizes Congress the power to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations U.S. Constitution (1787) p. 2, § 8, line 12 [4].

The Law of Nations states, "[n]atural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." The Law of Nations (1797) Book I, Ch. XIX, p. H3 [5]

Citing two references is not synthesizing. Synthesizing is combining two references into one statement. RE: Fat&Happy (talk), Loonymonkey (talk) Sempi (talk) 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so there's no misunderstanding of your argument here, is it your contention that the U.S. Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to punish offenses against rules and precepts described by a Swiss philosopher, Emerich de Vattel, in his book The Law of Nations? Fat&Happy (talk) 06:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not making any arguments or contentions. I'm merely citing the US Constitution and the Law of Nations. Check the references. So what is your argument for using the excuse of "synthesis" for deleting them? Sempi (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text added to an article has to have a purpose. That purpose needs to be clear, because text which is added so the reader can infer stuff if they want to connect the dots in a certain way is definitely SYNTH. If you explain the purpose of the proposed text, it may be possible to rewrite it so that its purpose is clear, and then its merits can be assessed. Re the second reference (a book by Emer de Vattel): does the proposed text suggest that the text in that book is somehow relevant to the "natural born citizen of the United States" status of a person? If so, what reliable source verifies that? Johnuniq (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Synthesis by juxtaposition. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are twisting the definition of synthesis. The subject under which these references were added is "Possible Sources." Clearly, if a book contains "natural-born citizen" then it is a possible source for the term, especially if the book was published prior to the usage. However, how is such a source specifically relevant to the United States? It is relevant because the Law of Nations was used as a reference by the founders, and is specifically mentioned in the US Constitution. Rather than blindly arguing, actually take a look at the reference provided. "Law of Nations" is given capitalized as a title in Section 8 of the actual Constitution. See image below.

Sempi (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that (section 8) is a reference to Vattels treatise is a mistake on the par of believing any Preacher using the phrase "Angels and Demons" must have been referring to the book by Dan Brown. They are clearly referring to the literal law of nations (international law) and not Vattels treatise. Mystylplx (talk) 17:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

False, you obviously did not look at the reference. The Law of Nations is given as a title in the US Constitution. It is not, "law of nations," but instead, "Law of Nations." Here is an image of the original US Constitution as referenced:

Sempi (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense is not acceptable because it is in a section titled "Nonsense". The "Possible Sources" section probably needs drastic reworking to fit Wikipedia's policies, rather than adding more stuff that might be related to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur. Sempi (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the phrase in the Constitution is meant to refer specifically to de Vattel's book, titled The Law of Nations, why is the first word of the title, the, not capitalized? Fat&Happy (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point about capitalization is meaningless since practically every other word in that section is capitalized (as you must have seen before you cropped the image down to just those words). But more to the point, are you really arguing that the U.S. Constitution singled out one book and expressly gave congress permission to punish any offenses against that book? Really? They don't mention offenses against the bible, why would they mention offenses against Vatel's book? That's just nutty. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nutty is ignoring the facts in front of your face and trying to dismiss them. All important nouns are capitalized. For example, in the same line, Piracies and Felonies are crimes, and high Seas is a term in Maritime Law, referring to any sea which is outside the territorial waters of a state. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem too, the line begins with "To define," this doesn't mean that Congress is supposed to punish all offenses against the Law of Nations, but rather define or decide what shall be relevant. In fact, the founders decided that natural born citizen would be relevant and included it in the Constitution solely as a requirement for those wishing to serve as President. Senators and Representatives are only required to be citizens.

This clause of the US Constitution authorizes Congress the power to define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations. High Seas refers to sea outside the jurisdiction of nations based upon Maritime Law, and the Law of Nations is a basis of national law. It does not literally mean "high seas," as in seas that are high, nor "law of nations," as in all law of nations. These are capitalized because they are references to specific law. Sempi (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While agreeing with what most everyone, has said, I thought it might be useful to summarize a few of the points Sempi is confused about.

"Law of Nations" was not the title of the section. The title of the section is Article 1 - The Legislative Branch Section 8 - Powers of Congress

All nouns in the Constitution were capitalized. Indeed, the entire section is "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; Maybe we should be searching for books entitled "Piracies and Felonies?" Or perhaps the real book we are looking for is "Offenses against the Law of Nations" (which is nothing Vattel ever wrote...)

What would an offense against a book even mean? It makes far more sense to simply read what it says and understand they are saying that crimes committed outside U.S. legal jurisdiction (the high Seas) are handled by Congress.... which is, after all, what it actually says. Mystylplx (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. No claim was ever made that Law of Nations was the title of the section. In fact, the correct title was given in the reference. So, besides being wrong, what is your point?

2. "Offenses" is not capitalized, nor are all nouns. This is simply false, and the rest of your notes ridiculous.

3. "Offenses against the Law of Nations," is no different a phrase than, "offenses against the Constitution."

Sempi (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to close this discussion as the opinions of editors on the article topic are not relevant. If there is a reliable source that makes some point, we can discuss whether it is due, and whether to include it in the article. However, there is no such source with information on the topic of the article. Johnuniq (talk)

03:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This has just turned into a rant. It's obvious by now that no reliable sources will be forthcoming. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd. This article is about the Natural born citizen clause of the US Constitution. There are no sources more reliable than the original US Constitution itself and the Law of Nations as cited therein, for the source of the "natural born citizen" clause. You are ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Why? The Constitution is not a reliable source for the Constitution?

How about you explain why the Constitution, and Law of Nations are not reliable sources. That would be more appropriate, given that one source is the subject itself, and the other is mentioned within the subject. The burden of proof is upon you to show why you think these are not reliable sources.Sempi (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The exact phrase as it was written in the Constitution including capitalizations, but with emphasis added. The entire Constitution is written that way.

"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

"offenses" is not capitalized that is a small cursive "o." Sempi (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's get back to reliable sources saying Vattel was influential in determining the meaning of a well understood English phrase. Got any?Mystylplx (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20

By Colonial Society of Massachusetts [6]

The third work by a master of the Law between Nations that came to Harvard College in the colonial period was that of the Swiss publicist, Emerich de Vattel. It is entitled, Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle. A copy of the English translation of the first French edition of 1758 was published at London in 1760, and was received at Harvard before 1773, while the Leyden edition of 1758 appears in the Catalogue of 1790, and may have been received at any time after 1764. The Library Company of Philadelphia likewise possessed in colonial days a copy of the English translation of 1760. Just as the colonies declared their independence another copy of Vattel was presented to Harvard College. This Harvard copy belongs to the edition of 1775, published at the Hague and edited by Charles Guillaume Frecleric Dumas. In 1775 Dumas, who was employed at the Hague as an agent of the colonists, sent, as we learn from a letter he wrote from the Hague on June 30th to Franklin and now among the Franklin papers in the American Philosophical Society at Philadelphia, three copies of his new edition of the treatise of the Swiss publicist to Benjamin Franklin in Philadelphia, one of them being intended for the Library Company of Philadelphia, a second for Franklin himself, and the third for a library in one of the other colonies. In October of 1775, Franklin gave one copy to the Philadelphia Library Company, which was then housed in Carpenter's Hall; and Franklin tells us that that copy was much used by the members of the First Continental Congress. A second copy he kept for himself. It is not known where that copy now is; possibly it has helped to feed some paper mill.1 The third copy, in accordance with Dumas's written wish, Franklin sent on in the summer of 1776 to James Bowdoin, afterwards governor of Massachusetts and a member of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, for presentation to the library of Harvard College. Bowdoin gave it to the College Library as a gift from Franklin/but it was really Dumas's gift, and so his name should have been entered as the donor.2 Franklin's great opinion of Harvard College is shown by the fact that he sent its library the third copy of Vattel. ... That copy of Vattel, in conjunction with the one in Philadelphia, has an especial interest for the student of International Law. For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document. By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land. And if we remember that Vattel's treatise was recognized in all the Foreign Offices of Europe at that time as the leading authority of the day upon questions of International Law, it may be said that in an actual sense Dumas, as the purveyor of knowledge to the statesmen of the United States of America concerning the Law of Nations, was in a sense the sponsor of the Law of Nations among us. And as that treatise was written by a citizen of Switzerland, a country which up to that time had done more than any other to develop the Law of Neutrality, and as Vattel himself had stated the conception of neutrality probably with more clearness than any publicist up to the time he wrote, it was eminently fitting that the young member of the family of Nations, the United States of America, should help to expand the Law of Neutrality. And, much more than any other Nation, our country has shaped the expansion of the Law of Neutrality. In sending us three copies of the treatise of Vattel, Dumas, as well as the publicist of Neuchatel, helped to influence our course in the early years of the Republic under Washington and Jefferson, and even afterwards, in moulding the expansion of the Law between Nations.

 Sempi (talk) 06:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, maybe you can point me to the part of that which indicates that the Founding Fathers used Vattel's book to define 'natural born citizen'? I ask, because that passage only seems to indicate, in general, Vattel was well regarded as being a good writer about the laws governing nations that already existed, and probably influenced the Founding Fathers when writing parts of the Constitution, and that Benjamin Franklin received three copies of the book in question, two of which were to be passed on to other people, not all the Founding Fathers accepted, without alteration or difference, how Vattel defined a 'natural born citizen', which, as Mystylplx already pointed out, was already a well understood phrase in English. Oh, and, as for your comment, further up this page, about the Constitution not being a reliable source about the Constitution - it is a reliable source about what the Constitution actually says. However, it is not a reliable source for your belief that the phrase 'law of nations' in the Constitution must refer to Vattel's book, especially as the full title of that book, in English, is actually, 'The Law of Nations, or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns', not just, 'The Law of Nations'. 86.164.13.4 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grasping at straws. Sempi (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Despite answering a post asking you to do this, you have failed to point to the part in your source which indicates that the Founding Fathers used Vattel's book to define 'natural born citizen'. I will take this as evidence that you are unable to as this part does not exist. As such, unfortunately, this source does not indicate that the removed passage, or any other, from Vattel's book, is actually relevant to this article. Feel free to go back and correct me by pointing to that part, however. 86.161.121.19 (talk) 02:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a source that indicates that any of the "possible sources" were used to define 'natural born citizen,'

You are trying to hold me to a higher standard than the current references, which I have already surpassed. None of the current sources directly reference that they were used to define 'natural born citizen.' Arguably, this is why they are under a headline of "possible sources."

However, what have I shown? I shall spell it out for you in baby portions since you are failing to read for yourself:

1) Congress and the founders did in fact use multiple copies of Vattel's Law of Nations before writing the US Constitution. The source I cited states;

a. "Franklin tells us that that copy was much used by the members of the First Continental Congress." Much used reference!

b. "For those three books, which arrived here in the early stages of the struggle between the colonies and the mother land, not merely influenced the men who sat in the Continental Congresses in shaping our policy towards Great Britain, but also undoubtedly influenced the framers of the Federal Constitution in the writing of parts of that state document."

c. "By the Constitution of the United States the Law of Nations is expressly recognized as being a part of the Law of the land."

d. "And if we remember that Vattel's treatise was recognized in all the Foreign Offices of Europe at that time as the leading authority of the day upon questions of International Law, it may be said that in an actual sense Dumas, as the purveyor of knowledge to the statesmen of the United States of America concerning the Law of Nations, was in a sense the sponsor of the Law of Nations among us."

e. "In sending us three copies of the treatise of Vattel, Dumas, as well as the publicist of Neuchatel, helped to influence our course in the early years of the Republic under Washington and Jefferson, and even afterwards, in moulding the expansion of the Law between Nations."

2) The original US Constitution has a reference to "Law of Nations."

3) The Law of Nations has a reference to "natural born citizen."

Sempi (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All you've shown was that Franklin received a gift, wrote a nice thank you note (Gosh I LOVE that polkadot tie! I wear it all the time! Really!) Then later regifted that gift to someone else. The fact remains--nowhere in the Convention debate notes nor any of the Federalist papers is Vattel once mentioned. And the Bill of rights stands as an example of to just what a great degree the framers disagreed with Vattel. Nothing in that passage gives any explanation of why the framers would have needed a Swiss philosopher, writing in French, to understand the meanings of commonly understood English words or phrases. But if you have an template:reliable source that agrees with you, and if it is credible and doesn't show undue weight, then it 'should be included in the article. Mystylplx (talk) 03:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, see above source which sates that Vattel was much used by members of Congress. Now the Oxford Dictionary with, "natural born," as a possible source for "natural born citizen?" Where is the Oxford Dictionary referenced?

Clearly you guys have a bias, you are not editors, but instead censors. Sempi (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of this establishes that Vattel was consulted by the authors of the constitution on the specific meaning of the term "natural born citizen." This is purely your speculation, and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Society

The Constitution Society, http://constitution.org, (not to be confused with the American Constitution Society) appears to be a one-person operation. The "About" page lists only one name, and it gives his personal phone number. His name is also on the WHOIS entry.[7] Unless there's evidence that this website is more than just Jon Roland's hobby, I don't think we should use it as a reliable source.[8] Will Beback talk 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The webmaster conveniently has his biography on Wikipedia: User:Jon Roland. Will Beback talk 22:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.constitution.org. Other issues aside, I think the consensus was that the site is a reliable publisher of primary source documents, but that Roland's commentary is not notable or reliable. Will Beback talk 22:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped the IP restoring the section a note to ward off further reverting and to encourage discussion here. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/suggestion

I'm not a lawyer, but one thing which jumped out at me when I first read this decision was the following:

"No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling, in relation to this unfortunate race, in the civilized nations of Europe or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted. Such an argument would be altogether inadmissible in any tribunal called on to interpret it. If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; ...".

It strikes me that it may be appropriate to insert this quote prior to the observation in the article saying, "Much of the majority opinion in this case was overturned by the 14th Amendment in 1868." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted opinion here.

On one hand, while I can see where that quote would be useful in an article on originalism, or one of its proponents like Justice Scalia, I can't see what it adds to a discussion of the Natural Born Citizen Clause;

On the other hand is a feeling of "WTH, why not? The entire 'Case law' section is a series of cherry-picked quotations without cited analysis or explanation of whether these primary sources are presented in context, properly interpreted. or currently relevant, so what difference does one more make." Fat&Happy (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or a Citizen

Article II states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, [...]" The commas are verbatim, and appear (at least with modern English grammar) to allow either option. Such a reading would make the interpretation of the rest of the clause (starting "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution") difficult; however, I would expect the point to have been addressed in legal opinion and by this article. It is interesting that the second comma is omitted in the article's extract (which I haven't verified) from Lynch v. Clarke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.111.138 (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a WP:RS discussing this issue, please cite it. --Weazie (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They tended to put commas in weird places. Try reading the second amendment for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Chester Arthur circumstances vs Barack Obama circumstances

Note: the edit I just did for Barak Obama's entry regarding the unclear disposition of his natural-born citizenship status is equivalent to the clarity and accuracy of the Chester Arthur description. If it has been sufficient CAA, it should be sufficient for BHO. --Sensical (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat&Happy just edited signifcant sections of the Chester Arthur section that had been substantially similar since 2009 and recent updates to the Barak Obama section by dismissing them as "unrelated synthesis". Huh??? I'd be interested in thoughts on this, as I believe they should be returned to the previous state. --Sensical (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, original research and synthesis. The reliably sourced facts relating to eligibility controversies remain. The opinions, with no reliable sources supporting them, and the random facts pulled from primary sources, without any secondary sources tying then to the controversies or the stated conclusions, were properly removed. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get off it Fat&Stupid, you're just here operating as a polical hack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.231.129.103 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spoken with all the courage of the typical IP drive-by. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're from California. Well, that explains it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Hamliton and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

I find the section of this article that mentions Alexander Hamilton as a potential Presidential candidate to be misleading. It refers to him as being a British subject/citizen and from British America. Alexander Hamilton was born in the Caribbean. While this may be British America in a certain historical sense it could be misinterpreted to mean that he was born in one of the thirteen colonies that became the United States of America. Hamilton was viewed by some of his peers as being foreign born. I would like to suggest that this section of the article be amended. BenjaminHoy (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC) BenjaminHoy Looks like this suggestion was considered and made. Thank You.BenjaminHoy (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)BenjaminHoy[reply]

Rewrite.

Let's be honest: This article is a mess. It is full of cherry-picked primary sources, and a rather notable absence of secondary sources.

I propose a major rewrite that removes the violations of OR, primary, synth, etc. (And, frankly, that will be most of the article.)

Suggestions, concerns, etc. welcomed. --Weazie (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WND daily mentioned this article. I make no claim as to the validity of their criticism. 173.128.233.23 (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, WND - such the paragon of honest reporting ... Ravensfire (talk) 22:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profiles/blogs/naturalborn-citizen-targeted Brian Pearson (talk)

WND may or may not be a paragon of honest reporting; the point is whether or not the information, and the charges (or parts of the information and parts of the charges), in its articles, about "ongoing 'edit war[s]'" (such as Natural-born citizen' targeted in more Web sanitizing) or other matters, are true or not — for instance, the fact (if it is not a fact, kindly explain why not, rather than engaging in ad hominems, by mocking conservative periodicals and/or by castigating conservative writers) that an "'editor' deleted in its entirety a section of a Wikipedia entry for Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel, whom Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin have credited for his influence on early American policy formation." Steve Peacock adds: "The deleted segment, titled 'USA Constitution,' had included a reference to de Vattel's 1757 treatise The Law of Nations, which defined natural-born citizenship as 'those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.'"

As for the claim that the "information that they say is missing is indeed still in the article," it turns out that, yes, Emmerich de Vattel still appears in the Wikipedia article, but only… once, in… one single sentence, relating to a court case from the …1890s. If WND's criticism bares out, even partly, an entire section relating instead to the writing of the Constitution in the 1780s (!), and to the influences on its authors and on their policies, has been — conveniently (according to WND) — excised (perhaps by someone who just happens to be a die-hard Obama supporter?). Asteriks (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a reliable source that indicates the Founding Fathers did, indeed, base their idea of a 'natural born citizen' on Vattel's work, feel free to provide it. That way, the passage may be re-added, with that source. If, however, you want the passage slapped back in, as it was, with no such source, you should not be too surprised if it immediately gets removed again for being in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, as it is - the other things given as 'possible sources' have clear indications as to why they could be possible sources, but the passage from 'Law of Nations', on the face of it, seems to have been included simply because it has the phrase 'natural born citizen' in it. 109.145.12.86 (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against a source you don't like

Wikipedia is not an authority, and our contributors are not gatekeepers. If some dead white male (wh'ale for short?) had an published opinion, it ought to be included.

Including a minority opinion does not give it weight, as long as we don't pretend that more people gave it credence than we know they did. But removing well-referenced information simply because you personally disagree with it is Wikipedia:Censorship and also violates Wikipedia:NPOV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natural_born_citizen_clause_of_the_U.S._Constitution&diff=427248002&oldid=427243313

So let's stop the edit warring over Vattel, and concentrate on how to describe his views, not whether. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance is important. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the quote? Vattel gives an opinion about what a "natural born citizen" ought to be. Now it may not agree with the lower court that ruled against the anti-Obama folks, but it's not irrelevant. If he was talking about whether a prince's spouse should be put in the line of succession to the British throne, that would be a bit off-topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with liking or disliking the source. The simple facts are,

de Vattel does not mention the U.S. Constitution,
the U.S. Constitution does not mention de Vattel or his treatise,
despite the volumes of work available on the Constitutional Convention, nobody has added any content from reliable sources showing a tie between the two.

So yes, the question would seem to be "whether" to include his views, and the answer dictated by WP sourcing policies would appear to be "no". Fat&Happy (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What source says that this guy Vattel's opinion has anything to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you saw the relevance, would you allow a summary of Vattel's views to be placed in the article? Or at least a sentence with a link? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First I'd like to see the link of someone notable confirming that Vattel's opinion is relevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Saw the relevance"? No. In fact, I already see a probable relevance; what we as individual editors "see" as relevance is original research. If "the relevance was demonstrated by reliable sources", then certainly. (But n.b, there were other editors expressing objections to inclusion of de Vattel above, who have not yet responded in this section.) Fat&Happy (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm getting at. An external, valid source needs to assert the notability of this Vattel guy's opinion in regard to this subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OED

Demonstrating the old maxim that even a broken clock is right twice a day, I wonder what justification there is for the inclusion of the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "natural born", and what useful purpose it serves. At the level given, the term is almost self-defining... "natural born" = "having a position by birth" tells us exactly nothing.

The OED, according to its article here, was founded in 1857; that would seems to make its inclusion in the "possible sources" section for a clause written in 1787 somewhat dubious. The sub-heading – English Common Law – is even worse, since the content makes no mention of the phrase's use in common law. There may be some usefulness in providing background on the non-legal, non-constitutional definition of "natural born", but it should be clearly identified as exactly that, not treated as meaningful to discussion of the technical meaning which is the topic of this article. Fat&Happy (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The OED does reference word usage prior to its first publication, so it is a reasonable guide to the general usage of words in 1787 (the entry for "natural-born" includes, among others, a citation of Jefferson); but we should really have a source if we want to claim that the general usage reported by the OED is relevant to the specific usage in the Constitution.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vattel

I don't really see any big problem with the way Vattel's "The Law of Nations" is mentioned in the current version of this page. I do, however, consider it an unreasonable stretch to suggest that the words "the Law of Nations" in the text of the Constitution — however capitalized — were intended as a reference to Vattel's book, as opposed to the general concept expressed by the phrase. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Vattel is referenced later in the article, as a source specifically cited by the dissenting opinion on the Wong Kim Ark case. I'm inclined to think that that is sufficient reference to his work, and that we shouldn't include editors' hypotheses as to its use as a source specifically for the use of terms in the Constitution itself.VoluntarySlave (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/04/john-mccains-fake-birth-certificate/

[2] ttp://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/McCainMarkup-1.jpg

[3] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/mccain_announcement_041708.pdf

[4] ttp://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/john_mccains_birthplace.html

[5] ttp://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/citizen_mccain.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

@@ Line 406: / Line 406: @@
 :: Not true, see above source which sates that Vattel was much used by members of Congress. Now the Oxford Dictionary with, "natural born," as a possible source for "natural born citizen?" Where is the Oxford Dictionary referenced?
 ::Clearly you guys have a bias, you are not editors, but instead censors. [[User:Sempi|Sempi]] ([[User talk:Sempi|talk]]) 23:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
+:::''None'' of this establishes that Vattel was consulted by the authors of the constitution on the specific meaning of the term "natural born citizen." This is purely your speculation, and as such not appropriate for Wikipedia.[[User:VoluntarySlave|VoluntarySlave]] ([[User talk:VoluntarySlave|talk]]) 07:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 ==Constitution Society==